California tax was bait-and-switch

DJ Jaffe

California voters in 2004 enacted a 1 percent tax on millionaires to improve care for people with serious mental illness. Of the $10 billion raised, $2 billion was diverted to social service programs that do not serve people with mental illness; $2.5 billion was spent without any oversight; and $23 million went to organizations associated with oversight commissioners.

On top of that, regulators prevented funds from helping the mentally ill; politicians enacted “clarifying” amendments that diverted funds elsewhere; and the most seriously mentally ill continue to be offloaded to jails, shelters, prisons and morgues.

These are just some of the findings in a new report, “Proposition 63: California’s 10-year, $10 billion bait-and-switch” by Mental Illness Policy Org.

The enactment of Proposition 63 set off a new California Gold Rush, with Mental Health Services Act funds replacing bullion. Social service programs that worked to help students get better grades, adults find better jobs, the impoverished avoid prostitution, teens avoid crime and parents be better at parenting masqueraded as mental illness programs to make themselves eligible for funding.

Here in San Diego, programs claiming to reduce gang violence, improve parenting skills and serve people with Alzheimer’s received funding by pretending to be mental illness programs. And even though there are no known ways to prevent serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, yoga, horseback riding, gardens, cultural centers, line-dancing, drumming, and art shows were declared evidenced-based prevention activities and showered with funds. Thirty county behavioral health directors, including San Diego’s, even bought themselves iPads paid for with Proposition 63 funds.

How could it go so wrong? The fox was called out to guard the hen house. Before passage Rusty Selix, a trade association leader of the movement to pass Proposition 63, declared that voters “didn’t want [the act] to fund all mental health, only people who had severe mental illness.” After the funds started flowing, he was placed on an oversight commission committee and funds flowed to his members. Selix now receives more than $600,000 from mental health providers who benefit from the tax on millionaires.

Senate Leader Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg originally proposed the legislation by declaring, “This measure will provide mental health services to people who need it most.” After passage he supported a “clarifying” amendment allowing funds to be spent on “virtually any aspect of mental health practices.” Serious mental illness, out. Mental health, in. By making it a “clarifying” amendment he cleverly avoided the two-thirds vote that would normally be required to overturn a voter initiative.

When Monterey County tried to the spend its funds on people with serious mental illness as voters intended, the oversight commission stopped them cold. These “programs cannot serve people with a mental health diagnosis.... Please clarify that these programs include persons without a mental health diagnosis.” Massive funding was diverted to studies. And studies of studies, which usually proposed more studies.

A stakeholder process meant to advise county behavioral directors was allowed to trump science, legislative language, and the intent of voters. Mental health and social service providers stacked meetings with constituents who wanted one thing: to have their own pet projects funded. There were no “stakeholder” meetings in jails, prisons, shelters or psychiatric hospitals where the most seriously ill live. No one represented people with serious mental illness so their voices were never heard — except in their own heads.

As a result of the bait-and-switch, people with serious mental illness continue to live under layers of lice-infected clothing, eating out of Dumpsters, and engaging in shouting matches with apparitions only they can see, voices only they can hear. Laura’s Law, a proven program that reduces incarceration, homelessness, hospitalization and violence among the most seriously ill, continues to go unfunded in San Diego and most other counties. Mothers with desperately ill children remain powerless to get them care. There are nearly four times as many mentally ill incarcerated in California as are hospitalized. Meanwhile, $11 million is going to a public relations agency to convince the public all is well.

It’s not.

Proposition 63 was an altruistic and important attempt by California voters to address a critical issue: the suffering of the most seriously mentally ill. It is as clear that Proposition 63 helped many as it is that billions are wasted. More money is not the answer. Wiser spending is. The subversion of the voters’ benevolence by the California legislature and the mental health and social services industries has been nothing less than criminal. Someone should go to jail. And it shouldn’t be those with mental illness.